| Literature DB >> 19127247 |
Thiago S Porto1, Rander Rangel, Niege A J C Furtado, Tatiane C de Carvalho, Carlos H G Martins, Rodrigo C S Veneziani, Fernando B Da Costa, Adriana H C Vinholis, Wilson R Cunha, Vladimir C G Heleno, Sergio R Ambrosio.
Abstract
Seven pimarane type-diterpenes re-isolated from Viguiera arenaria Baker and two semi-synthetic pimarane derivatives were evaluated in vitro against the following main microorganisms responsible for dental caries: Streptococcus salivarius, S. sobrinus, S. mutans, S. mitis, S. sanguinis and Lactobacillus casei. The compounds ent-pimara-8(14),15-dien-19-oic acid (PA); ent-8(14),15-pimaradien-3beta-ol; ent-15-pimarene-8beta,19-diol; ent-8(14),15-pimaradien-3beta-acetoxy and the sodium salt derivative of PA were the most active compounds, displaying MIC values ranging from 2 to 8 microg mL(-1). Thus, this class of compounds seems promising as a class of new effective anticariogenic agents. Furthermore, our results also allow us to conclude that minor structural differences among these diterpenes significantly influence their antimicrobial activity, bringing new perspectives to the discovery of new natural compounds that could be employed in the development of oral care products.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19127247 PMCID: PMC6253883 DOI: 10.3390/molecules14010191
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Chemical structures of the pimarane diterpenes from Viguiera arenaria.
In vitro antibacterial activity (MIC) of the pimarane-type diterpenes against oral pathogens.
| Compound | Minimum inhibitory concentration – μg∙mL-1 (μM) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microorganism | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 12.0 | 10.0 | 12.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 |
|
| * | * | * | * | * | * |
|
| 3.0 (9.9) | 4.0 (13.2) | 4.5 (14.9) | 2.5 (8.3) | 4.0 (13.2) | 5.0 (16.5) |
|
| * | * | * | * | * | * |
|
| 2.5 (8.7) | 4.0 (13.9) | 2.5 (8.7) | 4.5 (15.6) | 6.0 (20.8) | 4.0 (13.9) |
|
| * | * | * | * | * | * |
|
| 6.0 (19.6) | 4.0 (13.1) | 6.0 (19.6) | 6.0 (19.6) | 4.0 (13.1) | 3.0 (7.8) |
|
| * | 16.0 (50.2) | 20.0 (62.8) | * | 16.0 (50.2) | * |
|
| 6.0 (18.2) | 8.0 (24.2) | 6.0 (18.2) | 6.0 (18.2) | 6.0 (18.2) | 8.0 (24.2) |
|
| 2.0 (6.2) | 3.0 (9.3) | 2.5 (7.7) | 2.5 (7.7) | 4.0 (12.3) | 3.5 (10.8) |
|
| 0.0922 (0.16) | 0.3688 (0.64) | 0.0922 (0.16) | 0.7375 (1.27) | 0.0922 (0.16) | 0.0922 (0.16) |
* Inactive in the evaluated concentrations (MIC values higher than 80 μg∙mL-1); Positive Control (PC) – Chlorhexidine dihydrochloride; Negative control (4 % DMSO solution) did not affect the growth of the microorganisms.
Figure 2Chemical structure of ent-kaur-16(17)-en-19-oic-acid.